Iraq spells bad Bush campaign news(Excellent read)

[jbfam4]

Iraq spells bad Bush campaign news
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpklu243865076jun24,0,7189608,print.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
James Klurfeld

June 24, 2004



Unfortunately for President George W. Bush, that is happening with Iraq. Bush gambled on the basic proposition that he could make positive progress in the war on terrorism by invading Iraq. The evidence coming in day after day is that the war in Iraq has made the war against terrorism more difficult, not less. And it doesn't take a foreign policy expert to figure that out.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney can argue all they want that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida going back to before Sept. 11. But this much is not in dispute and the American people know it: Al-Qaida is operating big-time now in Iraq, and the American invasion of Iraq has inspired more people to go over to its cause than ever.

The Bush administration can claim all it wants that there are a lot of good things happening now in Iraq and that if they did make a major mistake, it was in not anticipating that the insurgency would be as strong as it is. That's what Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told Congress Tuesday. Overall, he said, the United States is on the right track and things will work out eventually.


Bush still has tens of millions of dollars for campaign commercials to try to change the impression. It might not be money well spent. Jimmy Carter's was seen as a failed presidency months before the election and, while the polls continued to show a close election, he lost in a landslide. A lot will happen between now and Election Day. But I wouldn't want to be in Bush's position.

[wryter2000]

1. Great, thanks

:kick:

[Miss Authoritiva]

2. I do disagree with this statement, though.

"Bush gambled on the basic proposition that he could make positive progress in the war on terrorism by invading Iraq."

There was no gamble, there was no "basic proposition." The Bush Administration knew that invading Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. A true "war on terror" does not and never will resemble the conventional war the US is waging on Iraq.

Fighting terror groups involves highly specialized intelligence agents worldwide, tremendous cooperation among allies and the otherwise "nonaligned," and enormous patience.

These items are of no interest to Bush and his corporate supporters for the simple reason that there is no big money to be made. You don't make big money training people to speak foreign languages, cultivating allies, and being patient.

A pointless conventional war is ideal because of the enormous consumption of big-ticket items. Every time something goes boom in Baghdad, somebody in corporate America is making money. Every piece of expended equipment and consumable is cheerfully replaced using taxpayer money.

And remember, the average soldier or reservist is not a big-ticket item. His life is very, very cheap and once he's dead (which is more cost-effective than his being merely injured), he doesn't have to be paid anymore. Think of it as a permanent layoff.